campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Sex, strangely considered . . .
My name is Rob J. King. I am a Theological Ethicist. I do not mean to offend, but lately I have been quite perturbed at the attempts of the homosexual agenda (democrat OR republican) to shove their view of reality down the rest of our throats. Take this for example. I was recently in attendance at a fairly informal Philosophical Society meeting. One of the presenters was a Doctoral Fellow at a local Florida university. This woman was quite articulate, presented a fine paper, but sadly, like most homosexuals I know, tried to force her view of reality on the rest of us. She began her presentation by mentioning her "wife" which at first I thought was a slip of the tongue, but then came to realize that she really was somehow "married" to another woman. Not only did she seek to impose a biologically impossible conception of marriage on the rest of us (sorry, two women cannot procreate and produce a baby!), but during the other lectures, her wife would sit there and caress her back while the rest of us were simply listening to the academic papers being presented. This is one example of how homosexual activism is particularly offensive. Gone are the days when one's homosexuality was kept behind closed doors. Now, a biologically impossible conception of marriage is being shoved down our throats as a people. Two plus two equals four, not five, three or seven! Similarly, male plus male does not equal "marriage" and female plus female does not equal civil union. Yes, homosexuals should be protected by law from violent hate crimes. NO, we should not be forced to accept their erroneous view of reality. If they want to have unnatural "sex" with each other, then this is part of their creaturely freedom. BUT, in so doing, we are not obligated as a people to accept their version of reality. Michel Foucault, the great post-modern philosopher (and practicing homosexual) never once made the claim that homosexual relations had to become the relations of Christendom. Christendom believed one thing. Homosexual practitioners believed another. So, in conclusion, please do not shove your homosexual 'marriage' onto the rest of us. If you wish to fornicate, then that is your own decision, and you have the innate creaturely freedom to do so. But do not expect the rest of we Americans to accept your distorted view of reality. If you pass laws that somehow 'mandate' that we accept your erroneous views, then like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or like Mahatma Gandhi, we will simply ignore your evil law and continue to reproduce biological offspring (the old-fashioned way, not in a test-tube with donated sperm). Blessings in Jesus Christ, Rob J. King, advocate for Pro-Life Christian America and believer in Humanae Vitae--RobJKing 16:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC) :: If you have a problem with gay marriage, then simply ignore it! It is not being shoved down your throat. Marriage is a voluntary contract between two consenting adults. There is nothing in that contract that puts any obligations on third parties such as you. So stop poking your nose into other people's business. :: You claim that homosexuality is unnatural. SO WHAT if it were? Surely as an ethicist you are aware of a thing called the "naturalistic fallacy"? And it's not unnatural anyhow. Other species do it. There are psychoevulotionary theories that explain its role in humans. :: You claim that homosexuality is a distorted view of realty. Who's reality? Your own personal reality? Homosexuality has always existed and will always exist. At least 5% of humans are homosexual. Is that not real enough for you? :: You are offended when a woman uses the word "wife"?? Get a life. Two Issues with RobJKing's Argument # When RobJKing keeps talking about "marriage" and "what is natural", it seems to me that he is confounding two levels of analysis: biological & cultural...essentially, as another person correctly pointed out, the naturalistic fallacy. # As any student of Anthropology 101 will tell you, human beings construct many different types of marriage systems, including same-sex marriages. Heterosexual monogomous marriage is no more or no less natural than other types of marriage, including same-sex marriage, polygyny, polyandry, or polygyandry. RobJKing is engaging in an ethnocentric bias. Marriage systems are cultural, not biological. Jaywin 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Well, I'm glad to know that you have had Logic & Critical Thinking. I taught four sections of that particular class (Bethel College and then Western International University-Online). BUT, the type of rationality I argue from is called "Natural Law" which is rooted first in the pagan Greek philosopher Aristotle and then the Catholic Christian Theologian St. Thomas Aquinas. In rooting my argument in natural law, yes, you are correct, the starting point would be "what do animals do," and yes, the argument has been made for homosexual activity within animal species. This pattern of same-sex activity, however, is the aberration and not the norm. To be blunt, animal species would not exist if homosexual coupling were EVER normative, whether for the chimp, the dog, the lizard or the whale (or human beings prior to in vitro fertilization techniques). So, the type of rationality you must argue with is not mine, but that of the Catholic Church. I recommend that you read the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae. God bless, Rob--RobJKing 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC) :Hi Rob, ::Let's take homosexuality in the animal kingdom for example and consider its potential function(s). Yes, sexuality's ultimate function is to reproduce. But pair-bonding can serve other functions, such as investing in offspring. One example that comes to mind is that I've read that female seagulls with offspring will sometimes form pair-bonds when there is a shortage of males in the population. This way, they can combine and coordinate their resources to more efficiently raise their offspring then they would have if they were "going it alone". Essentially, the pair-bonding function is co-opted for a same-sex pair-bonding that is optimal in a particular type of environment, (i.e., an environment with a significant shortage of males). Comments? Jaywin 15:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC) :And whether a type of behavior is outside the "norm" doesn't mean that it has no place in the culture, animal or otherwise. Gays that I know are not arguing that such an attraction and bonding behavior should be the norm for everyone, they just want it understood that it is normal for them and they wish to not be physically, emotionally or culturally abused by others because of that. This does not excuse irresponsible or inappropriate behavior towards others. They're just asking not to be kicked in the teeth. Chadlupkes 16:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC) ::Well put! Jaywin 16:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Jay, Thank you. My argument from a Natural Law perspective would be further delineated by the helpful Greek linguistic distinction of 'types of love.' "Eros" or romantic love is what is normally reserved for marriage or heterosexual relationships (although as ancient historiographer and philosopher Michel Foucault points out, the "things of eroticism" were focused on "moderation" known as the Greek Virtue of"sophrosyne", and yes, homosexual relations, including, horrifically, pedophilia, were encapsulated 'under' this Greek self-restraint). "Agape" is the word that Christians eventually used for the "unconditional love" that is the LOVE of JESUS CHRIST. Finally, the word "philia" was the word in ancient Greek for such male and male "brotherly" bonding among friends. This may come as a shock to you, but my closest NEIGHBOR is actually someone who has been "homosexual" but he goes about his life quietly, does not "hit on me" (like MOST other homosexual men I have encountered, some even in PUBLIC PARKS), and to be frank will remain a CLOSE FILIAL (from "philia") FRIEND since we often will trade good Hispanic CIGARS, bottles of wine, and even have loaned him some cash one time. Chad, I will also answer in saying that yes, what you have written below I agree with as we are of a similar mind about the dangers of sexual harassment and a propensity towards such actions by those whose passions are not properly 'moderated.' LOVE IN JESUS CHRIST, Rob--RobJKing 17:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)